Meta-Moderator is introduced, a learnable framework that dynamically regulates debate and decides when to finalize an answer, and outperforms widely used decision layers and transfers across tasks and system configurations.
Abstract
Multi-agent debate can improve large language model reasoning by eliciting diverse hypotheses and critiques, yet its performance is often constrained by weak moderation. Common pipelines rely on fixed budgets, agreement-based stopping, or untrained judges, leading to redundant deliberation and unreliable evidence aggregation. We cast moderation as a meta-cognitive process, monitoring debate utility, controlling deliberation, and adjudicating a final answer, and introduce Meta-Moderator, a learnable framework that dynamically regulates debate and decides when to finalize an answer. Meta-Moderator is trained independently of the debaters via outcome-driven policy optimization, making debate regulation an explicit capability rather than an incidental effect of prompting. Across five benchmarks, Meta-Moderator outperforms widely used decision layers and transfers across tasks and system configurations. Further analyses show that it allocates debate more selectively and reduces mis-aggregation after informative hypotheses appear.
Political polarization makes constructive cross-partisan dialogue increasingly difficult, and human facilitators are subject to bias and cognitive limits when tracking evolving stances in multi-party debates. We propose a Socially Interactive Agent that acts as an active mediator by fusing non-verbal cues with real-tim...
This work proposes R$^2$-MAD (Remember and Reweight for Multi-Agent Debate), a framework that equips agents with an experience memory accumulated from past debates that achieves consistent improvements over existing single-agent and MAD baselines.
Xuan-Fa Jin, Zhijian Ma, Yong-Cheng Zeng et al.· 0 citations
Media bias in news articles operates through subtle linguistic cues---loaded language, selective framing, and strategic omission---that resist single-model detection and have traditionally required large annotated corpora for supervised training. We ask whether structured multi-agent deliberation can serve as a princip...
Garvit Joshi, Stavya Dhyani, Jasmine et al.· 0 citations
It is demonstrated that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.
Mi-Ra Song, Chanwoo Kim, Sugyeong Eo et al.· 0 citations
Multi-agent debate, in which several LLMs exchange arguments before producing an answer, is widely assumed to improve answer quality by surfacing genuine disagreement. That disagreement is hard to verify, and no single signal can settle it, so we organize the analysis around four questions: (A) does the debater say it...
This study develops and test a novel theory of debate judgement applicable to all settings where agents engage in debates by providing pros and cons for their opinions therein and indicates argumentation semantics as an ideal candidate for principled judges in debate-driven AI.
Xiang Yin, Adam Dejl, Antonio Rago et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.